I always had the impression that photographers and designers preferred Macs. Of course, this is also one of those applications where people will buy a computer to fit the application rather than the other way round, so Adobe can afford to do this.
This is the reason Google have patented this. They may or may not have any intention of using it, but someone else might. And that someone else might decide Google is infringing on their patents, so Google unot./se it defensively. Or perhaps another company would like to license it. Or perhaps they never use it. Or they might change their mind about their policies.
Even though it's most likely this patent will never be used, patents are so cheap that it's still worth patenting everything just on the off-chance.
You can publish a link to a page that contains no copyrighted material, or to a page that contains copyrighted-but-freely-licensed material, and tomorrow the owner could stick infringing material on the page and you are now guilty of infringement as well.
Do you think that might have happened in this case then?
Seems that if this was the case, they might have mentioned it at some point. And I presume the court would have required the plaintiff to demonstrate this was not the case.
Law isn't as stupid and inflexible as you seem to think. This is one of the reasons we still have humans interpreting it.
If linking to copyrighted content is prohibited in NL
It's not though. Wilfully linking to material that infringes copyright can, in certain circumstances, also be considered copyright infringement. Linking to CC or GPL content is legal because they give explicit permission to be shared.
Woz is a geek! Like most of the rest of us, he's borderline fanatical about openness and how it promotes technology better than locking things down with patents.
3 strip technicolor was actually smarter than that. It only used a single camera with two exposure surfaces. The image was split in two by a prism, with a green filter in front of one strip, a second strip that was only sensitive to a narrow frequency (in the blue range), and a third strip behind the blue strip and behind a red filter.
Really ingenious. This means you're not trying to do the same camera operations at the same time with three separate cameras
Well, the basic principle of separating red, green and blue, using filters and black and white film had been known about for a few decades by that point. Mainly this was used for still images though. Quite easy to do if you have a fixed camera and a fixed scene. Simply swap the filters around and take three shots.
this is a way to automate the process to speed it up to film speed.
All laws are written with exceptions to deal with obvious issues like this. Either explicit (exceptions for law enforcement), or implicit (add a "without good reason" qualifier).
A guy on $20000 a year is in a much better position than a guy on $10000 a year. But someone who earns $1million a year will live pretty much the same lifestyle as someone on twice that.
Are you earning enough? If so the extra isn't a factor.
Yes, because since a game cave has been created, there's absolutely nothing else that can be done with it. Well, except make the image respond to the player's position, adjust for distortion and countless other things.
There was no need to release the crappy HTML5 based app. The previous version was adequate. Maybe it didn't have all the features facebook would have liked, but it had the essential ones people wanted to use from their smartphones. Facebook doesn't rely on having the most sophisticated software.
The incredible badness of the app should have been obvious from testing, and they should have rewritten it as a native app intead of releasing it.
Doesn't lossless generally require a fairly different design philosophy though? With lossy compression, presumably you're looking for the trade-off between compression ratio and quality. With lossless you're only interested in maximum compression.
Furhtermore aparently the defendant was found to have attempted to destroy evidence, which even on a good day can lead to a spoliation inference, and in some cases could even be considered a crime not unlike perjury.
Shouldn't they be charged with a crime then? Whether they did or not (and it's pretty clear they did), this shouldn't affect damages. Punishment should be handled in criminal courts. Civil courts should be about balancing the harm done. The destroying evidence was a separate act from the infringement
There's no way 1000 people downloaded that song. In fact, the average for any available song is about 1, since each person will on average download once, they'll upload once on average as well. If there are further damages down the road, then sue the people who shared the copies.
$100 would deter teenagers from sharing, and wouldn't result in them having such a huge disrespect for the legal system.
I could easily see a legitimate rationale for trading twice in a few minutes. I see a news story and speculate that this is going to make people overvalue the shares, so I buy some shares as quickly as possible and sell them when I think the stock is close to peaking.
What should the DOJ do to prevent possible future terror attacks? Should they just be accepted as a cost of freedom? Rejected as a highly improbably occurrence? If not, what sort of indicators should they look for before investigating further?
It's getting some sort of result and a sense of progress that matters. Not the tinkering in itself. It's a puzzle, and it's just frustrating if nothing happens. You need to have too much basic knowledge for someone with no contact with computers to have had.
Slashdot Mirror
I always had the impression that photographers and designers preferred Macs. Of course, this is also one of those applications where people will buy a computer to fit the application rather than the other way round, so Adobe can afford to do this.
The thing is, if you have a weapon that can sink a carrier, the ship becomes pretty significant. A mobile airfield is useless if it's underwater.
This is the reason Google have patented this. They may or may not have any intention of using it, but someone else might. And that someone else might decide Google is infringing on their patents, so Google unot./se it defensively. Or perhaps another company would like to license it. Or perhaps they never use it. Or they might change their mind about their policies.
Even though it's most likely this patent will never be used, patents are so cheap that it's still worth patenting everything just on the off-chance.
Just the one?
Did it occur to him that perhaps there might be a lawyer who is willing to defend this for less?
Surely nobody's safe from accusations of anything ever. If someone accuses you of something then you need to defend yourself.
Do you think that might have happened in this case then?
Seems that if this was the case, they might have mentioned it at some point. And I presume the court would have required the plaintiff to demonstrate this was not the case.
Law isn't as stupid and inflexible as you seem to think. This is one of the reasons we still have humans interpreting it.
It's not though. Wilfully linking to material that infringes copyright can, in certain circumstances, also be considered copyright infringement. Linking to CC or GPL content is legal because they give explicit permission to be shared.
Woz is a geek! Like most of the rest of us, he's borderline fanatical about openness and how it promotes technology better than locking things down with patents.
3 strip technicolor was actually smarter than that. It only used a single camera with two exposure surfaces. The image was split in two by a prism, with a green filter in front of one strip, a second strip that was only sensitive to a narrow frequency (in the blue range), and a third strip behind the blue strip and behind a red filter.
Really ingenious. This means you're not trying to do the same camera operations at the same time with three separate cameras
Well, the basic principle of separating red, green and blue, using filters and black and white film had been known about for a few decades by that point. Mainly this was used for still images though. Quite easy to do if you have a fixed camera and a fixed scene. Simply swap the filters around and take three shots.
this is a way to automate the process to speed it up to film speed.
All laws are written with exceptions to deal with obvious issues like this. Either explicit (exceptions for law enforcement), or implicit (add a "without good reason" qualifier).
A guy on $20000 a year is in a much better position than a guy on $10000 a year. But someone who earns $1million a year will live pretty much the same lifestyle as someone on twice that.
Are you earning enough? If so the extra isn't a factor.
Surely if most adult have a certain level of intelligence, this is, by definition, an adult level of intelligence.
Obviousness is about implementation. Not just the idea. The two I mentioned require a fair bit of development to get to work.
Yes, because since a game cave has been created, there's absolutely nothing else that can be done with it. Well, except make the image respond to the player's position, adjust for distortion and countless other things.
There was no need to release the crappy HTML5 based app. The previous version was adequate. Maybe it didn't have all the features facebook would have liked, but it had the essential ones people wanted to use from their smartphones. Facebook doesn't rely on having the most sophisticated software.
The incredible badness of the app should have been obvious from testing, and they should have rewritten it as a native app intead of releasing it.
This sort of thing already has medical applications. Hope the article is of interest.
Doesn't lossless generally require a fairly different design philosophy though? With lossy compression, presumably you're looking for the trade-off between compression ratio and quality. With lossless you're only interested in maximum compression.
Shouldn't they be charged with a crime then? Whether they did or not (and it's pretty clear they did), this shouldn't affect damages. Punishment should be handled in criminal courts. Civil courts should be about balancing the harm done. The destroying evidence was a separate act from the infringement
There's no way 1000 people downloaded that song. In fact, the average for any available song is about 1, since each person will on average download once, they'll upload once on average as well. If there are further damages down the road, then sue the people who shared the copies.
$100 would deter teenagers from sharing, and wouldn't result in them having such a huge disrespect for the legal system.
I could easily see a legitimate rationale for trading twice in a few minutes. I see a news story and speculate that this is going to make people overvalue the shares, so I buy some shares as quickly as possible and sell them when I think the stock is close to peaking.
Presumably, because it makes sharing with others easy.
They're not going to get a lot from a week, surely. Most companies would consider this to be ramp-up time.
What should the DOJ do to prevent possible future terror attacks? Should they just be accepted as a cost of freedom? Rejected as a highly improbably occurrence? If not, what sort of indicators should they look for before investigating further?
It's getting some sort of result and a sense of progress that matters. Not the tinkering in itself. It's a puzzle, and it's just frustrating if nothing happens. You need to have too much basic knowledge for someone with no contact with computers to have had.